The truth: nearly all past bigotry was justified, or at least had a logical component, even if it was unconscious. Men rejected female power because they knew what would happen if females got power. Men were racist because they knew what would happen in mixed race societies. Men were homophobic because they knew what would happen if degeneracy was allowed through the door. While historically most reactions to these taboos was purely based on instinct and not reason, we're seeing clearly in the modern world why men reacted instinctively towards these things. Sadly somewhere along the way our biological reactions were subverted, and we were told that they were wrong, and that we must embrace the deviants.
It's my natural instinct to be prejudiced against useless, weak, resentful, failures that depend on racialism to excuse their own failures in life. Especially if you're stupid enough to talk shit about my friends because your ideology of victimhood and resentment.
But I suppose your right. Let's rely on my own prejudices about people like you. You and your kind belong on the helicopter with the rest of the divisive, anti-American, scum.
It's natural to look out for your family and care for their well being. When villages and cities were populated only by a single people group that includes them as an extended family in what Aristotle called philia.
To say that one should not care for their extended family the same as they would for their close relatives is foolish at best and hateful at worst.
Our current society is one with low levels of racial solidarity and extremely high levels of propping up the weak. In a society with significant solidarity people would know when they are being a detriment to those around them. Which happens in many cultures with extreme environments like arctic or desert where they cannot tolerate somebody taking up resources and not contributing to their people.
When villages and cities were populated only by a single people group that includes them as an extended family in what Aristotle called philia.
Cities were never populated in that way. That's simply the nature of cities. The density grantees division. No one """"family"""" can populate a city of 10,000. Families that large are simply clans, not families, and not races, and they stop functioning as genuine families, and function more along the lines of a clan higherarchy with dynastic struggles within them.
To this day, Arab families still have these same issues. Everyone exists within some larger extended dynastic family order with family members and arranged marriages being created to serve the purpose of the sole patriarch. Failure to serve the family by virtue of doing the bidding of patriarch can mean death.
Broadening the family to include not only clan, not only the ethnic group, but the race, is absurd.
The stupidity of racial identitarians in black communities calling people brother, sister, or cousin is utterly nonsensical. Especially when a black American is raging about how much he hates black Africans.
A race is not a family, not even remotely. It's a broader abstraction than even an ethnic group or a clan. Within that, a race of people should never be governed like a family because it means that an entire race of people is subjugated like a clan structure. Dynastic totalitarianism for a race is not only fucking crazy, but utterly ludicrous to even consider implementing.
What ends up actually happening is a bunch of Progressive Racialists demanding totalitarian control and claiming that these racial identities are effectively "political identities", so that they can be broad enough to adopt anyone stupid enough to believe in them. This is why the Europeans were calling Italians "politically black", and why Democrats were already considering Hispanic to be a political affiliation.
low levels of racial solidary
Good. We're not brothers. I have a real family.
extremely high levels propping up the weak
Yes, that's the point.
they cannot tolerate somebody taking up resources and not contributing to their people.
The truth: nearly all past bigotry was justified, or at least had a logical component, even if it was unconscious. Men rejected female power because they knew what would happen if females got power. Men were racist because they knew what would happen in mixed race societies. Men were homophobic because they knew what would happen if degeneracy was allowed through the door. While historically most reactions to these taboos was purely based on instinct and not reason, we're seeing clearly in the modern world why men reacted instinctively towards these things. Sadly somewhere along the way our biological reactions were subverted, and we were told that they were wrong, and that we must embrace the deviants.
It's my natural instinct to be prejudiced against useless, weak, resentful, failures that depend on racialism to excuse their own failures in life. Especially if you're stupid enough to talk shit about my friends because your ideology of victimhood and resentment.
But I suppose your right. Let's rely on my own prejudices about people like you. You and your kind belong on the helicopter with the rest of the divisive, anti-American, scum.
It's natural to look out for your family and care for their well being. When villages and cities were populated only by a single people group that includes them as an extended family in what Aristotle called philia.
To say that one should not care for their extended family the same as they would for their close relatives is foolish at best and hateful at worst.
Our current society is one with low levels of racial solidarity and extremely high levels of propping up the weak. In a society with significant solidarity people would know when they are being a detriment to those around them. Which happens in many cultures with extreme environments like arctic or desert where they cannot tolerate somebody taking up resources and not contributing to their people.
Cities were never populated in that way. That's simply the nature of cities. The density grantees division. No one """"family"""" can populate a city of 10,000. Families that large are simply clans, not families, and not races, and they stop functioning as genuine families, and function more along the lines of a clan higherarchy with dynastic struggles within them.
To this day, Arab families still have these same issues. Everyone exists within some larger extended dynastic family order with family members and arranged marriages being created to serve the purpose of the sole patriarch. Failure to serve the family by virtue of doing the bidding of patriarch can mean death.
Broadening the family to include not only clan, not only the ethnic group, but the race, is absurd.
The stupidity of racial identitarians in black communities calling people brother, sister, or cousin is utterly nonsensical. Especially when a black American is raging about how much he hates black Africans.
A race is not a family, not even remotely. It's a broader abstraction than even an ethnic group or a clan. Within that, a race of people should never be governed like a family because it means that an entire race of people is subjugated like a clan structure. Dynastic totalitarianism for a race is not only fucking crazy, but utterly ludicrous to even consider implementing.
What ends up actually happening is a bunch of Progressive Racialists demanding totalitarian control and claiming that these racial identities are effectively "political identities", so that they can be broad enough to adopt anyone stupid enough to believe in them. This is why the Europeans were calling Italians "politically black", and why Democrats were already considering Hispanic to be a political affiliation.
Good. We're not brothers. I have a real family.
Yes, that's the point.
Agreed. Pinkos & racialists to the helicopters.